H&C Bars in Canada: When You Cannot Apply

H&C bars in Canada can prevent a humanitarian and compassionate application from being considered before an officer considers hardship, establishment, or the best interests of a child. Practitioners should identify these bars at the intake stage, not after they build the application. Humanitarian and compassionate applications allow some foreign nationals to seek permanent residence in Canada despite serious immigration obstacles. However, H&C does not create an open pathway for every person in Canada.

IRPA section 25 authorizes the Minister to consider humanitarian and compassionate factors in certain cases. The same section also creates important restrictions. In some situations, IRCC will not examine the request. In other situations, the person may file, but another legal rule may limit the application’s usefulness. This article explains the main H&C bars in Canada and offers practical screening points for immigration practitioners.

H&C applies to permanent residence, not temporary status

In the context of this article, H&C refers only to the application of section 25(1) of the IRPA. A person should not use H&C to ask for a visitor visa, study permit, work permit, or other temporary resident document. IRCC considers H&C only when a person applies for permanent resident status in Canada or for a permanent resident visa abroad. IRCC will not look at H&C requests from temporary resident applicants.

This point matters at intake. A client who wants to extend temporary status, restore status, or obtain a temporary resident visa needs a different strategy. H&C may become relevant only if the client seeks permanent residence and needs an exemption from one or more requirements under IRPA or the Regulations.

Practitioners should also compare H&C with other available routes. For example, some clients may need a family-class strategy, a TRP strategy, or an enforcement strategy rather than H&C.

Canadian citizens and permanent residents cannot use H&C

H&C under IRPA section 25 focuses on foreign nationals. Canadian citizens and permanent residents do not use this application.

A permanent resident may raise humanitarian and compassionate arguments in another legal context. For example, a permanent resident may rely on H&C factors in a residency obligation matter. However, that process differs from an H&C permanent residence application under section 25. For example, see Ambat v. Canada.

Practitioners should confirm the client’s status before drafting. This may sound basic, but status confusion can occur when a client has an expired PR card, a removal order, or a history of being a protected person.

H&C bars in Canada and serious inadmissibility

Some inadmissibility grounds block H&C relief.

IRPA section 25 excludes foreign nationals who face inadmissibility under:

1. Section 34, security
2. Section 35, human or international rights violations;
3. Section 35.1, sanctions; or
4. Section 37, organized criminality.

This limitation creates a major threshold issue. A strong establishment package, compelling family hardship, or serious best interests of the child evidence will not solve the problem if section 25 excludes the inadmissibility ground. Practitioners should screen for these issues early. If CBSA or IRCC alleges security, human rights violations, sanctions, or organized criminality, the practitioner should not assume that H&C can fix the file.

Some cases may require a separate remedy, such as ministerial relief where the law allows it. However, that remedy follows a different legal route and does not replace the section 25 analysis. You may also want to review our article on Front-End Security Screening in RPD Refugee Claims when security screening issues overlap with refugee or enforcement history.

A person cannot have two H&C requests pending

IRPA blocks a second H&C request while the first one remains pending. This bar matters when a client comes to a new practitioner after filing a weak self-represented package. The client may want to “file a better one.” In most cases, the practitioner must first deal with the pending request.

The practitioner should confirm the status of the old application. If IRCC has not yet made a decision, the client may need to update the existing file rather than file a new H&C request. A new package may create confusion, delay, or return issues. It may also waste valuable time in a removal-ready file.

H&C cannot bypass Express Entry invitation rules

IRPA section 25 also blocks H&C requests seeking an exemption from the criteria or obligations under Division 0.1. That division deals with the invitation to make an application system. In plain language, a person cannot use H&C to avoid the Express Entry invitation structure.

For example, a client may have strong Canadian establishment and sympathetic facts but no invitation to apply. H&C does not give the client a shortcut around the invitation system. The practitioner should look for another pathway or assess whether a true H&C permanent residence application fits the facts outside the Express Entry framework. Of course, you may still present H&C factors after ITA and upon or after submitting the Express Entry application.

H&C bars in Canada and pending refugee claims

A person cannot pursue H&C while a refugee claim remains pending before the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division. IRCC also tells applicants that they cannot apply for H&C while a refugee claim is pending. If they want to pursue H&C, they must withdraw the refugee claim before the IRB hearing.

This decision requires careful advice. Withdrawing a refugee claim may create serious consequences. It may affect eligibility, removal risk, future remedies, and the client’s overall strategy. Practitioners should not treat withdrawal as an administrative step. They should compare the refugee claim, RAD options, PRRA timing, H&C eligibility, removal risk, and evidentiary record before recommending any move.

Ineligible refugee claims can also create an H&C problem

Another less obvious bar appears when an officer finds the refugee claim ineligible for referral to the RPD, and the person has a pending protection application with the Minister.

In practice, this often points practitioners toward PRRA-related timing issues. The person may not have an RPD hearing, but H&C may still face a statutory bar if the protection application remains pending.

This scenario can confuse clients. They may say, “I never had a refugee hearing, so the refugee bar should not apply.” That statement may miss the real issue. The practitioner must check whether an officer found the claim ineligible and whether a protection application remains pending.

You may also compare this issue with other refugee eligibility rules, including our article on unaccompanied minors and Canada’s one-year refugee claim rule.

H&C bars in Canada after a failed refugee claim

Many practitioners know the one-year H&C bar after a failed refugee claim. However, the bar can apply in more than one situation.

The 12-month bar may apply after:

1. The RPD rejects the refugee claim.
2. The RPD declares the claim abandoned.
3. The claimant withdraws the claim after the RPD hears substantive evidence.
4. The RAD rejects the appeal.
5. The RAD declares the appeal abandoned.
6. the claimant withdraws the appeal after the RAD hears substantive evidence; or
7. The Federal Court refuses leave or dismisses judicial review, where the Federal Court’s step forms part of the relevant timeline.

The exact date matters. In some cases, the clock starts from the RPD decision. In other cases, the law uses the latest relevant date from the RPD, RAD, or Federal Court process.

Practitioners should not calculate the 12 months from memory. They should review the RPD decision, the RAD decision, the Federal Court leave outcome, and any history of withdrawal or abandonment.

Exceptions to the 12-month refugee bar

The 12-month refugee bar does not always end the H&C discussion.

The law creates two important exceptions.

• First, the bar does not apply if removal would expose the person to a risk to life because the country of nationality or of former habitual residence cannot provide adequate health or medical care.
• Second, the bar does not apply if removal would adversely affect the best interests of a directly affected party. child

These exceptions require evidence. A practitioner should not simply mention a child or a medical issue. The package should explain the legal exception and support it with credible, objective documents.

For a child-related exception, the evidence should address the child’s age, relationship to the applicant, dependency, education, health, emotional needs, country conditions, and the likely impact of removal.

For a medical exception, the evidence should address the diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, medical necessity, availability of treatment, cost, access, and the country’s practical ability to provide adequate care.

H&C bars in Canada and designated foreign nationals

Designated foreign nationals face a much longer H&C restriction.

A designated foreign national may not make an H&C request until five years have passed. The start date depends on the facts.

The five-year period may run from:

1. the final determination of the refugee claim;
2. the final determination of the protection application; or
3. The date the person became a designated foreign national.

Practitioners should use the specific statutory trigger, not a general estimate. A client may say, “The five years started when I arrived.” That may not match the law.

Designation after filing can suspend the H&C request

A person may file H&C first and later become a designated foreign national. In that situation, IRPA suspends the processing of the H&C request for the applicable five-year period. This rule matters because filing first does not always protect the application from later suspension. Practitioners should consider designation risk when dealing with irregular arrival facts, enforcement concerns, or group-arrival history.

Non-compliance can create another designated foreign national problem

IRPA also gives the Minister discretion to refuse to consider an H&C request in a further situation involving a designated foreign national. This may occur if the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with certain conditions or requirements, and less than 12 months have passed since the end of the applicable five-year period. This provision does not affect most H&C files. However, it matters when a designated foreign national is subject to detention conditions, release conditions, reporting duties, or other statutory requirements. Practitioners should collect the compliance history before filing.

Unpaid fees create a threshold problem.

IRPA states that the Minister becomes seized of the H&C request only after the applicant has paid the applicable fees.

This point may look procedural, but it can matter in urgent files. A package without proper payment may not create the legal effect the client expects. In removal-ready cases, practitioners should not assume that an uploaded form or mailed package triggers examination. They should confirm payment, submission, and proof of receipt.

For urgent post-refusal or enforcement matters, you may also review our Active File Review and Response page.

H&C cannot rely on refugee risk factors

H&C and refugee protection serve different purposes. In an in-Canada H&C request, the Minister may not consider the factors that decide whether a person meets the definition of a Convention refugee under section 96 or a person in need of protection under section 97(1).

This does not mean country conditions never matter. They may matter, but the practitioner must frame them as hardship rather than refugee risk. For example, a package should not simply argue that the client faces persecution because of political opinion. That belongs in the refugee protection framework.

Instead, the practitioner may need to explain how country conditions create hardship for this specific person. The analysis may address family separation, lack of support, social stigma, medical access, discrimination, poverty, instability, or the child’s best interests. The distinction matters. Poor framing can weaken an otherwise strong H&C application.

A removal order does not always block H&C.

A removal order does not automatically stop a person from filing H&C. However, H&C does not stay removed.

This creates one of the most common misunderstandings among clients. A client may think, “I filed H&C, so CBSA cannot remove me.” That belief can cause serious harm.

IRCC may continue to process the H&C application after the person leaves Canada. Meanwhile, CBSA may still enforce the removal order unless another legal mechanism stops removal. Practitioners should explain this point clearly and in writing. If removal remains imminent, the file may require a separate deferral request, Federal Court stay motion, or other urgent remedy, depending on the facts.

Provincial selection can limit H&C relief.

IRPA section 25 also contains a provincial selection limitation.

Where section 9(1) applies, the Minister may not grant permanent resident status if the foreign national does not meet the applicable provincial selection criteria. This issue does not arise in every H&C file. However, practitioners should remember it when the facts intersect with a provincial selection scheme.

Misrepresentation requires separate analysis.s

Misrepresentation under IRPA section 40 can create a serious problem with permanent residence. Section 40 makes a foreign national inadmissible for misrepresentation in several situations. It also creates a five-year consequence.

Section 40(3) says a foreign national who falls under section 40 may not apply for permanent resident status during that period.

Practitioners should treat misrepresentation with caution. Section 40 does not appear in the section 25 list of excluded inadmissibility grounds, unlike sections 34, 35, 35.1, and 37. However, section 40(3) sets out its own wording for applying for permanent resident status.

Therefore, a practitioner should not give quick advice that H&C automatically solves a misrepresentation finding. The analysis must consider the exact finding, timing, procedural history, requested exemption, and current IRCC position.

Common misconceptions about H&C bars in Canada

Many clients misunderstand H&C. Some practitioners also see files only after another representative or a ghost consultant has given oversimplified advice.

• A failed refugee claimant does not always need to wait 12 months. The exceptions may apply.
• A pending refugee claim does create a serious H&C problem. The claimant cannot simply run both processes simultaneously.
• A removal order does not necessarily stop the person from filing H&C. However, the H&C filing does not stop removal.
• A strong hardship story does not overcome every inadmissibility. Sections 34, 35, 35.1, and 37 remain outside H&C relief.
• A child in Canada does not automatically defeat the 12-month bar. The evidence must show how removal would adversely affect the best interests of the directly affected child.
• A medical issue does not automatically defeat the 12-month bar. The evidence must connect the risk to the country’s inability to provide adequate health or medical care.

Practical intake questions for practitioners

Before accepting an H&C file, practitioners should ask these questions:

1. Does the client seek permanent residence, not temporary status?
2. Does the client already have Canadian citizenship or permanent residence?
3. Has the client already filed an H&C request?
4. Does IRCC still have that request under consideration?
5. Does the client have a pending refugee claim before the RPD or RAD?
6. Did an officer ever find the refugee claim ineligible for referral?
7. Has the client filed a PRRA or other protection application?
8. Did the RPD or RAD reject, abandon, or treat the claim as withdrawn?
9. Did the client seek Federal Court leave or judicial review?
10. Have 12 months passed from the correct legal date?
11. Does a child-related or medical exception apply?
12. Has the Minister designated the client as a designated foreign national?
13. Does the client face allegations under sections 34, 35, 35.1, or 37?
14. Does the client face a misrepresentation finding?
15. Does the client have a removal order?
16. Does the client need an urgent removal strategy separate from H&C?
17. Has the client paid the correct fees?

These questions help practitioners identify barriers before investing time in the merits of the case.

Practical takeaways on H&C bars in Canada

H&C can offer an important remedy, but practitioners must screen for statutory bars before building the hardship case. The strongest H&C evidence will not help if IRPA prevents IRCC from examining the request. Timing, prior refugee history, designated foreign national status, inadmissibility, and pending applications can decide the file before IRCC reaches the merits.

A careful practitioner should start with eligibility, then move to hardship, establishment, family ties, children’s interests, and country conditions. In H&C work, the first question should not be, “Is the story compelling?” The first question should be, “Can IRCC legally examine this request?” That question captures the practical importance of H&C bars in Canada.

If you need general immigration tools, you may visit our free immigration assessment page. If you need case-specific immigration advice, please book a consultation with a licensed practitioner.

Sources

All sources listed below were accessed on 2026/06/06.

1. IRCC – Program Delivery Instructions, H&C
2. Government of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 25
3. Government of Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
4. IRCC, Humanitarian and compassionate grounds
5. IRCC, Guide 5291: Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

This article provides general information. It does not give legal or immigration advice for a specific case.